NEWS & OPINION :: OCTOBER 27, 2004

Outlook uncertain as Proposal 2 foes mount late opposition

By ED GLAZER

Opposition to Proposal 2 has snowballed in the run-up to the Nov. 2 election, but polling data remain inconclusive, and prospects of defeating the measure are uncertain at best.

The proposed amendment to Michigan’s Constitution is often referred to as a “gay marriage ban,” but a growing number of opponents fear the proposal’s broad wording will inflict far-reaching damage on the civil rights of Michigan’s citizens.

The proposal asks voters to decide whether “the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as marriage or similar union for any purpose.” Detractors such as Gov. Jennifer Granholm have expressed concern that it would sweep far beyond banning same-sex marriage, which has already been illegal in Michigan since 1846, to imperil existing benefits such as health care for domestic partners at MSU.

MSU’s student organizations, including the student-run State News, the Residence Halls Association and ASMSU, have publicly opposed the measure. The Association of Michigan Universities, an alliance of student governance bodies, has done likewise.

The student groups’ position contrasts sharply with Michigan State University’s own stance. Val Meyers, president of MSU’s Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Faculty and Staff Association, sent a letter to MSU’s Board of Trustees and President-Designate Lou Anna K. Simon requesting support from the administration in opposing the amendment. She received a non-committal answer.

In the letter, Meyers pointed out that domestic partners are offered benefits by local governments and state universities, noting that domestic partner benefits were established at MSU in 1997. Meyers added that such benefits “are not only an important component of the university’s faculty recruiting and retention efforts, but are also included in contracts with collective bargaining units.”

“It is not generally regarded as helpful for the University to respond to hypotheticals,” replied the university’s senior adviser to the president for diversity, Paulette Granberry Russell. In an e-mail response to Meyers’ letter, Russell wrote that the impact on domestic partner benefits could not easily be determined, and declined to commit to a defense of MSU’s benefits should the amendment spawn legal challenges. Russell added only that the administration has “always been supportive of benefits provided by Board action and has not taken action to reopen the provision of the benefits.”

In contrast to Russell’s vague statement, Wayne State University President Irvin D. Reid and University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman both sent e-mails to their faculty and staff reassuring them their respective universities would not only continue to provide domestic partner benefits, but also defend those benefits against future challenges. “While the scope of the proposed Constitutional Amendment is uncertain,” stated Reid’s e-mail, “Wayne State University will continue to offer domestic partner benefits and defend its right to do so.” Reid went on to say that the university’s Board of Governors supports the administration. Coleman’s e-mail followed suit: “If we are challenged, we will vigorously defend our right to offer such benefits.”

Polling data on the prospects of Proposal 2 have been inconclusive. The most recent poll, released Oct. 22 by Lansing-based EPIC/MRA, showed 57 percent in favor and 39 percent against. (The same poll found a near-even split it Lansing’s Central region, 48 percent in favor, 47 percent against.) However, a Gallup poll released Sept. 21 found 51 percent opposed to the proposal and 44 percent in favor.

Dana Houle, an official with the Coalition for a Fair Michigan, said the polling inconsistency gives his group reason to believe the proposal will fail. “Traditionally, if a proposal is only polling 50 percent, it’s in trouble,” Houle said. One of the largest groups working against Proposal 2 in the state, the Coalition formed last year to oppose a movement in Michigan’s legislature to amend the state Constitution.

The coalition has enjoyed support from a variety of groups. Organized labor, including the AFL-CIO with its 59 affiliated organizations, brought a potential 600,000 voters. A recent subset of the coalition brought together over 250 individual clergy and groups in an organization called the Religious Coalition for a Fair Michigan.

The Coalition for a Fair Michigan has had success raising funds, but is up against a strong base of support from political conservatives and church groups. To date, the group has raised close to half a million dollars, compared to a reported $1.3 million raised by the Citizens for the Protection of Marriage, the largest pro-amendment group in the state.

Despite the funding disparity, Houle said his group has an advantage over the pro-amendment crusade. “We don’t have to convince people we need this ban,” he said. “It’s always easier to get a no vote.” Houle also noted that five of the six ballot proposals offered to voters in the last two elections were defeated. Of those five, he said, “at least four were polling better at this point than Proposal 2 is.”

Michigan Equality, another group canvassing and speaking out against the proposal, has been slow in acting, said executive director Chris Swope. Swope said a slow response to same-sex marriage bans is a problem in many states, mostly due to an assumption among liberal voters that civil rights will prevail. “Some of the organizations didn’t think Michigan would stand any chance of being as close as we are,” he said.

Swope predicts the proposal’s broad wording will be its downfall, citing polling data that show widespread favor for recognition of civil unions. Even if the proposal does succeed, predicts Swope, it is bound to face a court challenge. “It will provide full employment for a lot of attorneys,” he said.

This is already the case in Louisiana, where a constitutional amendment similar to Michigan’s Proposal 2 passed earlier this year. According to a New York Times report, the amendment was thrown out by state District Court Judge William A. Morvant because it asked voters to decide more than one issue, exceeding a limit on the wording of ballot initiatives. In addition to defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, the Louisiana amendment’s language stipulates further that “the state shall not validate or recognize a legal status substantially similar to that of marriage.”

Care to respond? Send letters to letters@lansingcitypulse.com. View our Letters policy.